"Court Widens Scope of Property Seizure"

[Storebought]

From the Christian Science Monitor

In a major decision that narrows the constitutional protection of property owners, the US Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause authorizes government seizure of private property even when it merely offers a benefit to the public, rather than actual public use.

There is no way that this decision can't be spun other than as LeftWing authoritarianism, quite typical for this lawless Supreme Court.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

There really doesn't seem to be a lot of support for this decision among people online, but I think it's basically a necessary one. 

We need to remember that we give our government(s) quite a few powers that we hope they will use only in extreme circumstances.  Just because a government could conceivable abuse these powers doesn't mean a court should step in deciding individual cases.  There's nothing in the Constitution stopping the United States from declaring war on China...we put our trust the public to elect a rational president and Congress who won't do stupidly abuse their war powers, and who will be defeated for reelection if they screw up.  Similarly, we need to rely on the our elected officials, not the courts, to only use the power of eminent domain when necessary.

Haven't conservatives argued that courts should not substitute their judgment for the will of the American people?  If you don't think your local government officials should seize property to build a shopping mall, then vote for candidates who won't do this.  It seems to me that people who disagree with the court here should really take up their argument with their local politicians and the special interests who have so much sway over them.

[Emsworth]

There really doesn't seem to be a lot of support for this decision among people online, but I think it's basically a necessary one.

Perhaps, but it is still unconstitutional (see the debate on this issue here).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am not a conservative, but I hold that view. The will of the People is clearly expressed in the Constitution, and the Supreme Court has, in making this decision, violated it. The Constitution very clearly notes that private property may only be taken by the government for "public use," under which term this does not qualify.

[The Duke]

It should be pointed out exactly how ludicrous this decision is, past Supreme Court decisions being merely somewhat ludcirous.

The 5th Amendment reads as follows:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The Constitution not only requires that property seizures be converted to public and not private use, it does not even consider the possibility of a government seizing private property for transfer to another private citizen as a serious enough prospect to explicitly reject it!  The Constitution leaves the distinct impression that the only time a rational government would even consider taking private property is for purely public use.

And no, Justice Stevens, a use that generates additional tax revenue is not "public".

To substantiate the idea that The Constitution prohibits the seizure of private property for the private use of another, Justice O'Connor quotes the opinion of Justice Samuel Chase in 1798:

"An act of the Legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority ... . A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean... . [A] law that takes property from A. and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with such powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it."

Chase's opinion is particularly relevant because Justice Steven's arrogantly asserts that "Because over a century of our case law interpreting that provision dictates an affirmative answer to that question, we may not grant petitioners the relief that they seek."  Steven's can't say that precedent goes back any further than that, because if he tried to trace his logic and connect it to the text of the Fifth Amendment and the intent of the authors of that Amendment, he'd fail miserably as there is no reasonable connection.  He only credits himself 100 years of precedent because there is 120 years of precedent stretching back before that contradicts him!

All citizens, understand that in short this decision means that an entire section of the Constitution has been removed by fiat and that you have fewer rights today than you did a few days ago.  Did you vote for any of that?  I didn't.

[dazzleman]

From the Christian Science Monitor

In a major decision that narrows the constitutional protection of property owners, the US Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause authorizes government seizure of private property even when it merely offers a benefit to the public, rather than actual public use.

There is no way that this decision can't be spun other than as LeftWing authoritarianism, quite typical for this lawless Supreme Court.

I tend to agree, though I support the use of eminent domain in extreme cases.  What has happened is what always happens with the courts.  The constitution says eminent domain can be used for public purposes, and the court has broadened the interpretation of that to mean that government can aid a private concern to take property that will be used ostensibly for a vague public good.

The Supreme Court, and the legal system in general, really scares me.  They are making law, pure and simple.  Some of their rulings are simply personal opinion of the way things should be, rather than a rigorous interpretation of the constitution.  I think it is absolutely imperative that we reduce the power of the judicial branch of government, and the power that it does have should largely be to limit, not augment, the power of the other branches.